Maggie Gallagher and I have found something to agree on! In its legislation adopting same-sex marriage, Vermont included some quite substantial opt-out clauses for religious organizations. These are not merely gestural, as David Bankof notes. Like Maggie, I see this as a potential landmark.
Maggie sees significance in the fact that the gay-marriage movement-which she regards as a juggernaut bearing down on her civil rights-"permitted" religious-liberty protections. I'd put it a bit differently: this kind of live-and-let-live arrangement, while imperfect, benefits both sides.
David Blankenhorn and I argue for tying religious-liberty protections to federal recognition of gay couples because it's a way to expand the comfort zone of both sides: gay couples and families get many of the protections they need, religious objectors get legally assured room to dissent. Vermont signals the political viability and real-world relevance of this approach.
It also, by the way, shows that legislatures can do politics better than courts. But we knew that.
30 Comments for “Vermont’s Other Breakthrough”
posted by BobN on
this kind of live-and-let-live arrangement, while imperfect, benefits both sides
It’s not “imperfect”. It’s appalling.
I’m all for religious exemptions, but if the only reason for which exemptions are given is homosexuality, then you’re just codifying homophobia.
posted by esurience on
BobN,
I somewhat agree with you. But not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a much worse codification of homophobia than these exemptions are.
And since it seems that religious freedom is going to become the center-prong of the attack from the opponents of marriage equality, I’d say it’s better to take those concerns seriously, and address them as Vermont has, and get marriage as a result.
I do agree that it is inconsistent to allow discrimination against gay people where you wouldn’t allow discrimination against race, religion, etc… but I think we should keep our eye on the ball, with marriage.
posted by TS on
I totally disagree with BobN. Homophobia is just a fear. Fear is normal and natural. I fear lots of things, such as atomic holocaust and Muslims. Whether these are rational or not is for debate. I would take the side that fear of homos is not rational, but as long as people don’t try to use it as an excuse for behaving in an immoral way, I have no antipathy for homophobia.
I think that there should be more religious exemptions for all kinds of stuff. As a general rule, there should be no religious exceptions to laws that prohibit actions, but plenty of religious exceptions to laws that compel or encourage actions. Not to mention, I agree with esurience that “not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a much worse codification of homophobia than these exemptions are.”
posted by Bobby on
What’s wrong with religions exemptions? Does anyone believe in freedom anymore? Must everyone be forced to be a politically correct, tolerant, open minded global citizen? Is it too outrageous to consider individual needs vs. the needs of the progressive collective?
If a church doesn’t want to marry me, I don’t need that church. Why the hell do some people feel the need to be accepted everywhere? That’s like black people suing to join the Ku Klux Klan.
Churches have a right to discriminate against gay people, and we have a right not to attend church. This country was founded on FREEDOM, freedom doesn’t mean everyone gets to hug each other while singing kumbaya.
Freedom means we stay separate, with our own kind, doing our own thing, participating where we are welcomed and staying outside of unfriendly places.
posted by Bryan on
What makes me suspicious about these religious exemptions is that they are totally redundant. Religions already have the right to marry whomever they please, and to refuse it to whomever else. They also are not compelled to recognize divorces, even though civil divorce is incredibly widespread. So why does their freedom when it comes to gay marriages need to be made so explicit?
posted by BobN on
I’d say it’s better to take those concerns seriously, and address them as Vermont has
But Vermont didn’t take them seriously. There was little discussion — and little understanding on either side — of their impact. The amendments were added at the last minute to get just enough votes to override the governor’s veto.
I think an honest discussion of the “religious liberties” at risk would be very helpful and I would compromise on them — I even feel a compromise would be GOOD for us and for our opponents — but I will not sign on to a ill thoughout compromise for the sake of compromise.
posted by BobN on
I totally disagree with BobN.
No you don’t not really. You understand the “fear” of homosexuality and the “fear” of other groups and think that “fear” should be respected.
I agree. I just don’t want “fear” of us to be the only accommodation.
posted by TS on
“I agree. I just don’t want “fear” of us to be the only accommodation.”
Sorry, I don’t feel I clearly understand what you’re saying here. Could you reword it?
posted by TS on
“What makes me suspicious about these religious exemptions is that they are totally redundant. Religions already have the right to marry whomever they please, and to refuse it to whomever else.”
You’re quite right. I suppose it is a matter of placation, for which I reiterate that if that’s what it takes to dispel irrational fear, then I’m all for it.
Not to mention, as Bobby irreverently points out, perhaps they really do have a reason to fear. I am on good terms with most of our colleagues on the left, but some of them do seem to have stupid projects aiming to make people accept us. That is fascistic.
posted by BobN on
“Sorry, I don’t feel I clearly understand what you’re saying here. Could you reword it?”
My fault. Sorry.
How about an example?
One of the real fears of some religious groups is being forced to provide insurance coverage for the spouses of employees of, say, a religious charity that gets public support in the way of grants or a contract. They argue that it forces them to acknowledge and subsidize “sin”.
I could accept an exemption for them BUT only if it would also allow them to ignore the spouse of an employee who married in a civil ceremony (non-sacramental) or in the tradition of another faith, say, Catholic organization and Krishna wedding.
In other words, they would be allowed to discriminate based on the religion of the employee or the spouse. This is a broader exemption than one tailored to cover just same-sex couples.
Those concerned with “religious liberty” often point to the case of Bob Jones University. The IRS threatened to remove their tax-exempt status due to their ban on interracial dating. They went to court. The school lost. Any exemption for same-sex couples should, in my mind, reverse that decision. As much as I disagree with them, religious belief in racial superiority is just as legitimate as opposition to homosexuality.
On a side note, I find it interesting that the Catholic Church, which does not recognize divorce, seems all too pleased to cancel the health insurance for a spouse upon divorce. If they don’t recognize the divorce why don’t they continue to pay the coverage on principle? (answer: $$$$)
Under existing law, of course, they have to recognize the divorce. AND they have to recognize an employee’s remarriage, a marriage they consider completely invalid and sinful.
In other cases, where the employee has agreed in a contract to conduct his/her life according to the tenets of the organization, for example some Baptist colleges, the school is free to fire the employee if he/she violates the religion’s beliefs. There was a professor whose wife DIVORCED HIM and he had to leave his job even though he fought the divorce. This power is usually given to the organization only if the employee is in a position with religious or teaching aspects. To my knowledge, it doesn’t apply to, say, gardeners.
Our opposition would like to be able to ignore our spouse and fire us based on our sexual orientation and/or marital status. I just think that if we have to be subject to that sort of discrimination, so should everyone else.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Gay-rights bills have been including religious exemptions for pragmatic political reasons, despite their being redundant in light of the First Amendment, for decades. I don’t see what the big deal is this time. The reason they are added is that some people are irrational and are eager to see religious infringement where there is none. If, however, such exemptions ar not redundant–that is, if they go beyond the First Amendment to require exemptions from non-discrimination laws when religious organizatios launch business ventures outside their core religious function, then I have a problem with them. The radical right is adept at portraying itself as a victim when the opposite is the truth. We should not be quick to cave in to this old ploy, especially when the tide is turning in our favor.
posted by BobN on
I don’t see what the big deal is this time.
Read the amendments to the Vermont law.
(I’ll try and find the link.)
posted by Bobby on
“Not to mention, as Bobby irreverently points out, perhaps they really do have a reason to fear. I am on good terms with most of our colleagues on the left, but some of them do seem to have stupid projects aiming to make people accept us. That is fascistic.”
—Precisely, in Europe there have been cases of gays suing state churches for the right to get married, Luxembourg is an exmaple of this.
Bill Maher, who’s NOT a libertarian, said, “you can’t tolerate intolerance.” The lefties who shut down Tom Tancredo said “hate speech is not free speech.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Students-at-UNC-deny-former-Congressman-Tancredo-free-speech
The left calls the right nazis yet they engage in the same tactics of Hitler’s brownshirts.
They talk about freedom but they only want freedom for themselves. It’s like the women who sue male-only clubs to get admission while defending the rights of women-only gyms to stay segregated.
Freedom of religion is what this country was founded on, it’s why the Puritans came here, it’s why the army let’s the Wiccans hold their ceremonies in the base. If we force churches to marry gays, to provide health insurance for divorce couples, to accept interracial dating, then freedom of religion has ceased to exist.
And that includes Obama, who had the audacity of giving a speech at Georgetown while having his White House thugs demand that a Christian symbol be removed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
It’s funny how the left complains about the right being sensitive, it seems to be that it’s the left that has lost any semblance of sensitivity, empathy and respect for their fellow citizens.
posted by BobN on
If we force churches to marry gays, to provide health insurance for divorce couples, to accept interracial dating, then freedom of religion has ceased to exist.
On the one hand, I’m glad you read my post. On the other hand, you don’t seem to grasp that religious leaders in pushing reasonable freedom of religion protections are the ones who instituted the rules about insurance and divorce. That’s why it’s unfair to change them just to single us out.
posted by Bobby on
BobN, there was a time that religious folks where in charge of morality in this country and people like us where at their mercy. Now the tables have turned, now the secular have the power, we control film, TV, music, and so on. Now single mothers are glorified, now you can get lots of divorces and have an abortion at the 8th month of your pregnancy. Now you can show porn movies in college universities and get porn through the mail or online.
That doesn’t mean we get to impose our values on religious folks. No, we simply give them what we have always asked for them, we leave them alone and they live us alone.
Religious exemption laws, school vouchers and allowing parents to homeschool the kids are great ways of keeping the moralists out of our lives.
I have no problem fighting the religious when it comes to state sponsored same-sex marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military, and other issues that have nothing to do with religion.
My policy is, I don’t tell the catholic church how to run their church and they won’t tell the local gay bar how to run their business.
It makes no sense to fight fascism by becoming a fascist.
posted by BobN on
Bobby, if it’s “fascist” to require a Catholic non-profit to provide insurance for a same-sex partner, then it is also fascist to require them to provide insurance to a Krishna-joined partner. The latter is the law AS IT NOW STANDS.
You seem to miss that I’m willing to EXPAND religious exemptions, just as long as we’re not the only area affected. If they want more “religious freedom” for groups, they have to accept less religious freedom for individuals. That’s what they’re asking of us.
On a side note, when they were in charge of national morality, I don’t recall them giving anybody orgy vouchers.
posted by esurience on
One problem I see is that the likes of Maggie Gallagher want to pervert the purpose of anti-discrimination laws, transforming them into a weapon to bludgeon, rather than protect, the minority (in this case, gays). She wants to create a special right for people who interpret religion the way she does, so that they may discriminate against groups who are most needing of anti-discrimination protection.
To allow the majority to discriminate against the minority, but not allow the reverse, isn’t a high-minded principle of fairness, it’s just self-serving hypocrisy. I doubt Maggie would be in favor of an exemption for a gay or atheist to discriminate against a conservative Christian, for example.
However, we shouldn’t forget that the Constitution explicitly protects the free exercise of religion, but is moot on private acts of discrimination (as opposed to government acts). Despite the fear-mongering from Maggie, the free exercise of religion obviously extends at least to the exit door of the Church, but how far out does it go from there, once a group enters the public sphere to provide goods & services? I think that is largely a solved issue as it relates to other protected classes (race, sex, religion), and I don’t see why it should be different for gays & lesbians.
On the other hand… none of this really bothers me that much one way or another. At least it certainly doesn’t bother me to the extent that the lack of legally-recognized marriage for gays & lesbians does. So if I were a legislator and had to make some concessions, even if they were hypocritical and inconsistent with other applications of anti-discrimination law, I wouldn’t hesitate to make them in order to get marriage.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, if it’s “fascist” to require a Catholic non-profit to provide insurance for a same-sex partner, then it is also fascist to require them to provide insurance to a Krishna-joined partner. The latter is the law AS IT NOW STANDS.”
—Yet it is! Religious freedom is supposed to allow you to make your own decisions as to who gets insurance and who doesn’t. Insurance is NOT a right!
“If they want more “religious freedom” for groups, they have to accept less religious freedom for individuals. That’s what they’re asking of us.”
—That doesn’t make any sense.
“On a side note, when they were in charge of national morality, I don’t recall them giving anybody orgy vouchers.”
—Very funny. The reality is that all property owners pay school taxes, some schools teach leftwing propaganda (such as showing Al Gore’s indoctrination about global warming without parental consent). School vouchers are designed to give parents a choice.
Leftwingers don’t get it because they hate the individual and love the collective. So if Bobby doesn’t like what they’re teaching in school, the left says “fuck you, Bobby, we’ll take your money anyway.” Well, there are a large segments of Americans that don’t want to have their children indoctrinated by the leftwing nazis.
Frankly, if it was up to me, I would abolish school taxes unless your kids go to a public school. That’s the libertarian approach, you pay for what you use.
posted by BobN on
Yet it is! Religious freedom is supposed to allow you to make your own decisions as to who gets insurance and who doesn’t. Insurance is NOT a right!
Uh, no. Religious freedom is an individual right and means you cannot be discriminated against by your employer if you choose to make a personal decision about how to marry your partner. Insurance is not a right, but if your employer offers insurance to its employees, you have the RIGHT to participate in that program regardless of your religion.
posted by mademark on
Beware a snake bearing gifts. The ‘religious exemptions’, aside from being redundant and unnecessary, play into our opponents’ game plan by giving the appearence that they are needed, hence that same-sex marriage is a serious threat. It the words of the odious Maggie Gallagher (NY Post column and townhall.com): “But the Vermont same-sex marriage bill was a breakthrough in another way which has received zero attention in the press. For the very first time, a legislature has formally acknowledged that gay marriage poses a serious threat to the religious liberties of Vermonters who disagree with the government’s new definition of marriage.” They’ll be using this in their media campaign soon enough.
posted by Bobby on
“Uh, no. Religious freedom is an individual right and means you cannot be discriminated against by your employer if you choose to make a personal decision about how to marry your partner.”
—Not true, the American Family Association only hires employees with christian values, the Catholic Church only wants to hire Catholics for leadership positions, if a woman wants to be a priest, too bad, it ain’t happening.
One of the reasons many secularists oppose the government giving money to faith-based charities is because they know religious-based discrimination will occur. This is the same reason why you can’t force a Catholic or Baptist Hospital to perform abortions even if you give it taxpayer dollars.
“Insurance is not a right, but if your employer offers insurance to its employees, you have the RIGHT to participate in that program regardless of your religion.”
—If that the case, religious organizations will simply fire all gays that seek those benefits before compromising their values.
The truth is that for the most part, we are at the mercy of our employers be them government, private or parochial. At my last job I had to wait 3 months to earn the right to get insurance.
That’s why millions of Americans dream of owning a small business someday, including the vilified Joe the Plumber who’d rather keep his wealth instead of spreading it.
The best thing we can do is stay away from religious institutions. Live and let live.
posted by John Howard on
These are not merely gestural, as David Bankof notes.
But they are merely gestural, since not only are they unnecessary in terms of what they purport to accomplish, but they don’t allow anyone to ignore a same-sex marriage.
And Bobby understands that what matters is if we allow him to attempt to use genetic engineering to create children or not, not whether I get to discriminate against him or not.
Jonathan, do you accept the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which would get federal recognition to same-sex couples in CU’s that were exactly like marriage except for not protecting the right to conceive children together using the couple’s own genes? Or, do you insist that same-sex couples should have the right to attempt to conceive children together?
Ignoring the question means you reject the compromise and insist on same-sex conception rights, as is the status quo. Ignoring the question means you don’t think that same-sex couples deserve equal federal recognition or equal protections in every state as much as they deserve same-sex conception rights. So, for their sake, please don’t ignore the question any longer and please support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.
posted by TS on
Sorry BobN, just now read your post. Ah, now I understand, and I agree. There should be more freedom, and more equality.
Every business should be free to employ, benefit, fire etc. how it wants. But all, really all, businesses should be taxed in equivalent ways. That includes religious organizations, which are basically just busineses by other means, and other so-called “non-profits”. All charities (only the giving ends, not the business ends) should remain tax free, but the government should never give a dime to any charity, all of which discriminate on the basis of their mission statement.
The government tries to use tax code to pressure sections of society into falling in line with its program. This must stop. It is both anti-freedom and counterproductive.
posted by Bobby on
TS, taxing religion would give them more power. If the Catholic Church paid taxes their lobbying against online porn, strip bars, and other things they deem immoral would have more credibility.
Besides, do you assume all charities at the given end are good? Some arab charities help poor muslims and Hamas, ACORN has engaged in election fraud, PETA has given financial support to ALF which engages in eco-terrorism.
I do question the “non-profit” designation for colleges and universities. Harvard charges a hefty tuition fee and pays their teachers very very well, they have also gotten generous grants from the government. I think they should pay taxes. A church that runs a homeless center contributes way more than Harvard, I’d rather support them.
posted by John Howard on
Harvard’s written into the Massachusetts Constitution. We have to give them everything they ask for, or something like that. Either that, or we own their entire endowment, depending on how you read it.
posted by Rob on
And Bobby understands that what matters is if we allow him to attempt to use genetic engineering to create children or not, not whether I get to discriminate against him or not.
*sigh* Again with the bioconservatism and apologism. It’s just not going to be the dystopian future that you predict,although it won’t be utopian either. So long as sapient rights are maintained, there is very little to worry about. The fact is that baseline humans will eventually be supplanted by a myriad of human derived clades as well as artificial intelligence. It’s required at the rate we’re overpopulating this spec of cosmic dust, otherwise it’s the extinction of the stream.
What do you honestly expect humans to do in a thousand years from now?
posted by John Howard on
Let’s leave that for the people a thousand years from now to decide. And I’m not just worried about a dystopian future, I’m more interested in the immediate things we can achieve by bringing the question of whether and when to allow genetic engineering under the purview of Congress, and taking the decision out of the hands of fame-driven labs and love-addled couples. We’d get some of the benefits of a ban even if it was understood to be only a moratorium while we figured out whether it should be permanent or not, things like equal protections and federal recognition for CU’s. We’d get even more benefits, though, if we really understood that the ban was going to be permanent and people were always going to be created the way we were created, and that we had to actually care for people rather than hope technology would make caring unnecessary. It would remove lots of angst and fear if we moved permanently to a post-Transhumansim future, and allow the world to focus on creating a self-sustainable ecologically friendly economy and society.
I’d even go so far as to say it would be utopian, but my idea of utopia includes a healthy dose of problems to deal with and work to be done.
I think that’s a big point that needs to be repeated: I’m suggesting moving to a post-Transhumanism future that will be better than the status quo and better than a Transhumanist future. Usually people only want to compare the Transhumanism future to the status quo, and fail to consider that things would be very different if we take a definite turn away from the direction we are going and toward a future known to be rooted in human equality and equal sexual reproduction rights. Just the recognition that we can control the future rather than succumb to it will be incredibly liberating for people all over the globe.
posted by Bobby on
John, whether it’s genetic engineering, in-vitro fertilization or plain old plastic surgery, the reality is that medical procedures like those are expensive and not available to a wide majority of people.
And whether gays adopt babies or produce them in test tubes it doesn’t matter, the anti-gays will always oppose it because they want every child to have a mother and a father, it’s their mantra.
Besides, most reproduction is achieved through traditional means, or as Harvey Danger puts it in the song Flagpole Sitta, “been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding, the cretins clothing and feeding, and I don’t even own a TV.”
Which is why I’m more worried about natural engineering. Take a friend of mine, Mr. X, his girlfriend is not on the pill because he says it gives her headaches and they already had unprotected sex a few times because he had problems maintaining an erection with the condom, oh, and the bitch doesn’t believe in abortions so if she gets pregnant, she’ll have the baby. Think about it, my friend and his reckless girlfriend went to college, imagine the stupid mistakes the uneducated masses make.
posted by John Howard on
Well, I think the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise will have a good effect on Mr. X and his girlfriend, it will remind them that its not in principle something they should be doing, they should either get married or not have sex.
You’re right the anti-gays will continue to oppose homosexuality, and they’ll still be able to. They’ll be getting marriage preserved, so they’ll be happy.
Also, you’re not seeing the benefits of it for achieving federal recognition. Getting those social security survivor benefits is very important for lots of older couples, and since same-sex conception isn’t currently viable and might not be available or affordable for most couples for years, why not just leave that right on the table for the time being in exchange for getting the federal recognition instead, right now. I think it would result in full strength CUs in all 50 states soon. You could still continue to fight for equal conception rights and marriage if it meant so much to you, just like the antis can continue to fight against, but now we’ll know what precisely we are fighting about, and in the meantime same-sex couples will be protected and marriage rights not compromised.
And when or if Congress decides if states should allow genetic engineering and same-sex conception, they’d repeal or revise the egg and sperm law and that would allow same-sex marriages.
posted by Bobby on
Hey John,
“Well, I think the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise will have a good effect on Mr. X and his girlfriend, it will remind them that its not in principle something they should be doing, they should either get married or not have sex.”
—Not having sex is rarely an option for secular people and even religious people who often fail to live up to their principles.
But I assure you, while you may hate genetic engineering, Americans are an individualist sort and other than Sara Pallin who had the guts to birth a baby with down syndrome, most Americans don’t want babies with problems.
With adoption it’s very cruel, the demand for cute white babies between 1 and 3 is much larger than minority children 3 to 14.
Americans are also obsessed with physical perfection which they call “health.” Both the right and the left embrace this so-called war against obesity, both worry about disease and longevity and if a genetic engineer could offer them perfect children with no hair loss, no autism, a fast metabolism, good looks, tall, etc, they are likely to take it.
So even if the gays agree with your offer, you still have to worry about the straights.